top 100 commentsshow all 118

[–]magnora7 51 insightful - 6 fun51 insightful - 5 fun52 insightful - 6 fun -  (39 children)

Those are the official saidit rules verbatim... They've taken themselves off of /all as required.

Please read the rules:

And carefully read the mod rules:

And you will see they're doing it correctly. Thanks

[–]Nelumbo 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

OP made this thread right after getting a post of theirs removed from GenderCritical where they said misogynistic transwomen needed to be put down. So they're angry GC is following the rules against advocating violence.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

after getting a post of theirs removed from GenderCritical where they said misogynistic transwomen needed to be put down

you what?

[–]Nelumbo 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

you said

I've met some very 'normal' trans people. So I now consider there to be two types: Harmless types who kinda fit into to their chosen gender roles, and attention freak whores who hate women.

One lot doesn't make me feel uncomfortable or cause any hint of sexual threat. The other lot need to be put down.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"fuck off you pedophile freak" is a 'put down'. Didn't even know that had been removed. Nice to know someone cares enough to stalk, though.

[–]Nelumbo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

put down can also mean kill. clicking on your profile and seeing your second post from the top is saying that, is not stalking. if you truly think so then go whine to the admins that they should disable user pages.

[–]I-0x0-I 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (26 children)

/gendercritical definitely still shows up on /all for me. just saying. they've never left /all as far as i can tell.

[–]magnora7 21 insightful - 3 fun21 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 3 fun -  (25 children)

No they're off of /all. They will show up on /all/new though, which shows absolutely everything

[–]SeasonedReason 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (23 children)

This is confusing, something that is not allowed on /all could appear on /all/new? That doesn't seem logical. In computer technology, if something isn't visible in a hierarchy at /position, it definitely isn't visible at /position/sub-position.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (21 children)

It's a redditism, that's how they do it, we inherited the behavior. That's why the wording on reddit is so obtuse "Show up in high-traffic feeds: Allow your community to be in r/all, r/popular, and trending lists where it can be seen by the general Reddit population."

[–]teelo 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (20 children)

You should change it. If they want to block open discussion then they shouldn't appear anywhere outside of their little bubble.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (19 children)

We might do that, everyone is on the fence. The plan for now is to hype the 'mute sub' feature more on /s/all. Were someone to make a post about this asking for a Yes or No vote, and were it to get a clear Yes consensus, maybe that'd inspire the change.

[–]teelo 5 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 7 fun -  (10 children)

Were someone to make a post about this asking for a Yes or No vote, and were it to get a clear Yes consensus, maybe that'd inspire the change.

On it.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

hhaaa shit

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

that's not a fair poll...

[–]magnora7 8 insightful - 8 fun8 insightful - 7 fun9 insightful - 8 fun -  (6 children)

Lol that poll is like when Stephen Colbert used to go around asking people: "Is George Bush a great president, or the greatest president?"

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think it'd be an improvement overall, but realistically you're the one would would have to code it because I don't know how, so it's really totally 100% up to you. Whether you decide to do it or not, I'm 100% on board with whichever you choose.

[–]theoracle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This problem will just keep coming up, optional moderation is the solution. I think try that basic implementation and then see how it goes you can probably let what ever subs appear in /all with it. The pyramid of debate is not going to work without heavy moderation and heavy moderation will turn off a lot of people. The collapsed mode will probably work for most. I am not sure you guys could keep up with the number of reports though. Already the "no moderation" Ruqqus has adopted a growing core group of admins/moderators that can ban and remove things site wide, they are doing things like quarantining subs and shadow bans.... You need to head off ending up on the same path to reddit as soon as possible and I think a technical solution is the best. Look how well no down vote has worked. Tech is best.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Tech is best.

Amen. As much as we hate "the algorithm" on YouTube, a technical solution is typically best.

Your example of the downvote illustrates it, which even I was kind of surprised saidit would do: It's not that you need to hide away stupid comments, they simply get no traction. There is no need for censorship. People simply ignore them or provide counter arguments.

[–]theoracle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks but I am going to disagree and say there is a place for censorship but it MUST be optional. There is certain types of speech that are really only disruptive like, spam, trolling, and some low effort posts. Users though should be the ones with ultimate control on what is censored and ONLY for them. No one should be made dictator over what you may or may not see and read except YOU! The choice on how you experience a platform should be yours.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The pyramid of debate is not going to work without heavy moderation and heavy moderation will turn off a lot of people.

Looks like you might be right about it turning people off.

You might try pitching your idea at reddit too. The guy who just took the chair position there was also iirc CEO of Y Combinator the tech startup thingy. Maybe they'd be into trying something like this if there's changeups already going on there and a guy has just come on board who has experience with innovative tech stuff.

[–]theoracle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I hate reddit and want to see it burnt to the ground. I am quite certain if they tried my idea they would most certainly cuck it. The only person with a major platform I would hold any hope to implement it is Jack Dorsey and that's because he has expressed a desire for something like it.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I kind of agree, but here's the previous discussion about that site feature:

[–]I-0x0-I 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

ooooh. well that explains it. i pretty much stay in all/new & /new/. didn't realize /all/new showed everything. i assumed that removal from /all/ was total. my bad, i'm an ass.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

So banning accounts for 'being known male' is within the rules?

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If they take themselves off of /all and state so in the sidebar, yes

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that was a different sub. with an underscore. /s/Gender_Critical.

[–]joeytundra 45 insightful - 5 fun45 insightful - 4 fun46 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

So cancel out women that having opposing views to this insane notion that men can declare they are women? Why are you apart of the cancel culture? They express some really valid opinions. Straight men are also being bashed and accused of transphobia for not sleeping with a man that just wants to larp as a woman.

[–]Aureus 18 insightful - 4 fun18 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

I'm perfectly fine with GC. My only concerns would be if SaidIt admins themselves start banning subs or users they don't like, or if mods of "neutral" default subs start doing that. GC is within its rights

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

My only concerns would be if SaidIt admins themselves start banning subs or users they don't like

the handling of /s/holocaustskepticism and /u/jmichaelhudsondotnet are getting a bit close to this for comfort, imo. SaidIt isn't a free speech platform, though it's better than Reddit right now.

[–]jet199 17 insightful - 4 fun17 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

I'm pretty sure it's too get rid of "suck my cock" style trolling.

Hopefully they won't start banning Muslim women for saying "white men ain't so bad" like they did on reddit.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

banning Muslim women for saying "white men ain't so bad" like they did on reddit.

this happened?!

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

It's one of the many reasons the GC WOC sub was set up.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

women who weren't white wanted to be less anti-white?? I would be interested in hearing more details of what kind of things happened (the good and the bad) that lead to that sub being set up, if you're interested in sharing.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

OMG. Are you for real?

I feel like I've just been randomly attacked by a rabid Chihuahua. I totally do not support trans insanity.

[–]Selzauido 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Who cares?

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Not you, obviously. That is why the people who do care end up in charge on social media sites. And then we are shocked why social media sites have insane speech rules. You care enough to create an account here and comment, you would think that you would also care enough for it to remain that way.

[–]sockpuppetposter 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don’t like censorship but I don’t think the OP has a point here. Free speech doesn’t imply free speech wherever I want: he can even make a sub called “GenderCriticalSucks” and it would pretty much fair game.

He even showed awareness of that sub’s rules by highlighting them in his post, yet he is trying to “make noise”, to use us to force himself there. Of course he’s allowed to do it, but I’m also allowed to call him out.

Also, someone went on to whine on Reddit, suggesting that allowing for mods to curate their own subs was the same as Reddit’s site wide crackdown on what they decided not to be welcome there anymore (and don’t forget: OP is allowed to make his own anti-sub if he wants to, or to roast them publicly like he’s doing). This was astonishingly dishonest, a sucker punch and a logical fallacy called “false equivalence”. OP is not facing a ban Or a quarantine from Saidit: OP can still post whatever he wants, just not wherever he wants.

His reaction to the fact his opinions are not welcome everywhere denotes, IMO, a fairly entitled and authoritarian mindset. OP: nobody is obligated to hear you!

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)


so many words, so much ego based bullshit to justify NO FOLLOWING THE RULES.

You are not special

[–]sockpuppetposter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you think I am affiliated with the sub (which follows the rules to the letter btw)? Hahhahaha...

Go get some sleep. Hopefully you’ll think more clearly afterwards.

[–]Nelumbo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


Those are the official saidit rules verbatim... They've taken themselves off of /all as required.

Please read the rules:

And carefully read the mod rules:

And you will see they're doing it correctly. Thanks

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (36 children)

After just five hours on this site, and being excited to have returned to the older days of Reddit, with freedom of speech, I have already received my first, permanent ban from a sub, /s/GenderCritical. Even Reddit did not manage to have me banned this quickly.

According to the rationale, I was banned for my supposed gender:

Accounts that post here and are known to be male will have their ability to post here removed.

This is the rule I will be acting in accordance with now. Please note that this is in no way a condemnation or endorsement of your contribution, and it's not a punishment, it's simply meant to keep the space functioning as it's meant to. And again, remember that you're free to post elsewhere if you like on this topic. The "other discussions" tab can make it easy to find discussions on the same topic in different subs so I'd encourage you to use that (I think posting a link to this post will do it) if you want to make it easy for interested people to find your discussion on this topic too. You should still be able to view the content of your comment on your userpage if you would like to post the text elsewhere. (

Here is another one of my comments: (

That is precisely the argument I had made about freedom of speech and how sites always slip back into censorship.

It seems this was with the same user as the person who later banned me. Apparently, we have a more fundamental disagreement about freedom of speech. I find this behavior incredibly hypocritical. They complain censorship in one place, just to enforce it in the next place. It is not that they despise censorship, it is just that they are upset that it is not their flavor of censorship, not against those people they dislike, and not them in charge. These are precisely the types of people who will vie for places of authority on this site. We always ask in amazement "How could this happen? How did it get so bad on site X?" This way. We do not care, so those who do care, who do vie for authority are the ones who end up calling the shots.

What now? What should be done in response to this? I say, let's prove the strength of our ideals. Censorship should be met with more freedom. Censorship should not be met with more censorship. I say, the best thing to do is use our freedom of speech. Dear moderator of Gender Critical, you might have packaged your rationale with pretense of politeness, but it is abundantly clear to me why: at this stage, your power on this platform is still weak. As censorship increases, the gloves will come off, and you will be just as vindictive as anyone else practicing identity politics. Your character, in the claims of women's oppression and victimhood you make, are abundantly clear. You are an identitarian and an authoritarian in waiting. You got a taste of your own medicine and you did not like it. But, instead, you did not learn your lesson, you are seeking to replicate what you left behind in another place.

I am sorry, but this will put us on a path of conflict. I condemn this hypocrisy and if this is site is not supposed to end, in a few years, the same way as Reddit now, we must root out censorship in its inception, expose it, and condemn it. Consider this my reading of the riot act to you, /s/GenderCritical. It is either me or you. There will not be both on this site. If it is you, I will gladly pack my bags, go elsewhere, encourage as many as possible to follow me, and ridicule you for the hypocrites you are in any place that still values freedom of speech. We are on the war path.

Anyone who would like to link to this post can find an archived version under, in case this post will be deleted for some form of damage control: (

I encourage you to spread this.

PS: There are two subs, one with and one without underscore. Gender_Critical vs. GenderCritical. Please pay attention to it.

[–]joeytundra 38 insightful - 2 fun38 insightful - 1 fun39 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

After reading some of your other comments how you think women are some of the most coddled people on the planet..I can see why you were banned. Clearly women aren't coddled and protected if all men have to do is declare they identify as women and demand women allow any man into spaces and change her language so she's not allowed to talk about her own biology. It's us men that are the most protected. You are acting very entitled. Saidit like Reddit have their own subs. If you come in acting like women have it made when they don't and are under attack, you've been in too many MRA circles online and watching too much porn. We need to wake up to what's really going on here. Why are there many different circles online filled with contempt towards women and to the point where random women have been murdered by 8chan and 4 chan members after getting their dose of validation for hating women and porn ads all over the place? We're being lied to by a bunch of groomers. Why is a gay male involved with MGTOW? GROOMERS AND THEY ARE GROOMING US to turn us effeminate. Women aren't doing this to are and you don't know what their orientation really is online. Some of the speeches coming from MRA circles sound an awful lot like how gay men perceive women as a threat. "Pussy pass" for example...that's what gay men think women have but if you open your eyes women don't really have that. There is a penis pass. Think of how much we can get away with. They even make up lies about statistics.

They want us addicted to violent porn, effeminate porn, addicted to anal...women don't benefit from that. Calling men white knights for even defending a woman as a shaming tool? Straight men don't come up with that. Bitter males that view women as their competition do.

You can hate women all you want but I'd much rather defend a woman's honor than go sniff a dude bro's ass online for thumbs up and validation. That is a trap.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

After reading some of your other comments how you think women are some of the most coddled people on the planet..I can see why you were banned.

That's not why. It wasn't his opinions, but because the space is supposed to be for women (as described in the /s/Gender_Critical (with an underscore) sidebar, and the text he quoted, and my mod response.

I wanted to have an open women's discussion space at /s/Gender_Critical (with underscore), with less ideological censorship than /s/GenderCritical (no underscore).

(And I have no affiliation with /s/GenderCritical (no underscore) )

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

You can call me hateful all you want. Then you did not understand the points I was making or looked into the claims I was making. Women are the most protected class, out of biological reasons. Women are also the moral arbiters in our society, which is a huge part of why we had such a rush towards the left, why women can start movements like MeToo and MRA can hardly get legislative change passed. Gay men also do not have the social impact you claim. Our automatic in-group preference is for women, not gay men. Women, the sisterhood as I called it, decide what is program, who has moral ascendency in the end, even when it comes to black people or migrants. They are the biggest voting block and have most social cohesion. Any discrimination you can find or allege in society, against minorities such as black people, is stronger against men than that minority.

I will probably comment on this topic many more times, so follow my account. But to play the same tired games of alleging hate, that I will probably have very little patience for. I do not like identity politics and if you want to debate me, debate the arguments I present, not me as a person. I will not be silenced for the gender people think I have (although, I still do not think I have even disclosed that conclusively) and I will not engage discussions about my mental state. You are not my therapist. If Hitler had said 2+2 is 4, it would still be four, no matter how hateful he was, so buzz off with your nonsense. If this is a site where this type of argumentation flies, I might as well go back to Twitter or Reddit.

You can have this idiocy on every mainstream social media platform. If all you are coming here for is to transform this place into the same sort of hug boxes, with the same intellectually weak identity based ways of argumentation, then all you are here for is entryism, not freedom of speech.

Starr, Sonja B. “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases.” American Law and Economics Review 17, no. 1 (2014): 127–159.

Hugenberg, Kurt, and Sabine Sczesny. “On Wonderful Women and Seeing Smiles: Social Categorization Moderates the Happy Face Response Latency Advantage.” Social Cognition 24, no. 5 (2006): 516–539.

Rudman, Laurie A., and Stephanie A. Goodwin. “Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women like Women More than Men like Men?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 4 (2004): 494.

I will not repeat all of the points I made, though. You can look at how the sisterhood ostracizes women who go against the narrative, such as Erin Pizzey, Cassey Jaye, etc. but it is still women, in the end, who will call the shots, which is why the transgender trend will be quite short-lived, as soon as women are hurt, such as in sports and why the media's narrative is about trans-women, not trans-men. This is about women, not transgender people, primarily, or we would not hear this little about women transitioning to men. Read my post. It's linked and I will probably keep talking about this until I am censored on this site as well.

[–]joeytundra 30 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 0 fun31 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

you do realize men calling themselves women have been invading women's sports for a long time with women getting hurt and nothing is done about it? Who has you believing women have all this power? Meet Fallon Fox...didn't even disclose from the get go was biologically male. Women were forced to fight this person and cracked a woman's skull open. Nothing was done about it except he got put into the Gay hall of fame even though he's a straight male that identifies as a lesbian. He went hard after this woman because she's a lesbian that doesn't want to have sex with a biological male. There is no pussy pass bro. Tons of shit flies in favor of our wants even if it hurts women and children.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Why are you responding with this bullshit? This is about freedom of speech.

There is no pussy pass bro.

That is complete bullshit. But regardless whether there is or not, we cannot discuss this in the sub because I can no longer post there. I had also brought up Fallon Fox already myself, which you could have seen if my post wasn't removed -- or if it's still up you did not care to read it. I am not going to rehash all the points I have already spent paragraph after paragraph typing just because of your childish bullshit.

What is the rationale here exactly? That Fallon Fox comes through the screen to kick you in the head if he disagrees with you? If people cannot have valuable input on a topic due to their gender then that implies that they must have a certain opinion due to their gender. If you want to limit your sub because of someone's assumed gender then you want to limit your sub because people might disagree with you. Then why not just set the party line on the sub rules to the points of discussion that people have to fall in line with?

I could set up another account, use a VPN, Tor or something and you would never know my gender. Or, you would have to also ban women who you think are men, based on their comments, so it comes down to party line again. You do not actually know from the words on the screen who is male or female.

What you are doing is not creating a space for women, even if that was sensible online, you are creating, once more, a sub with a given party line. Otherwise, what you are saying is that women have a certain set of opinion, or they are not women.

Go fuck yourself.

[–]joeytundra 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Such a child you are. Grow up bro. Be a real man not a woman hating soy boy!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That's precisely part of it: a man, according to simps, must be someone who serves women. Without it, they are not a man. You also have to misrepresent my position by saying that I hate women, which is not true. I (apparently) hate radfems, but that is because of the positions they hold, not because of who they are, as women, due to their gender. They, however, seem to be among the people who think that people hold certain opinions because of them being men or women. I would say that's sexist.

Also, if you are part of that sub, are you a woman? Why do you keep saying "bro"? Are you a guy who needs to be kicked from the sub?

Hey, is there a process for you people at Gender*Critical to determine sex, for the purpose of your community rules? Let's put them to the test. I want to see them working.

I actually do not think that I have stated my gender to any of you. It seems like an assumption, perhaps, was made, but I would really like to know if u/joeytundra is a valid member of your community or not. Mods? s/Gender_Critical, any thoughts? Come on. I want to see your logic in action. I want to see you make a call on this.

Please walk us through this process, in transparent a fashion as possible.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

s/Gender_Critical, any thoughts?

just fyi if you want to tag someone you can use their username, e.g. /u/ccccccc. Then they will get a notification of the message they were tagged in (unless they turned that off). I didn't see this message until now.

[–]joeytundra 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Here is another special gay rights piece of history. So let me ask you...who sent you? Are you here to be the narcissistic abusive hounder of the women that have been cancelled on reddit? Are you a soyboy?? You don't like women? Let us have them then. You can go cry in another man's arms just like this link wants you to do.

Written by a gay male activist

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I will ponder the points you are making but I will not replace one kind of identitarianism with another. I will not flee censorship in one place just to run into the same bullshit on the site to counter it.

I would also like to point out the argument you are making "I can see why you were banned": that is the same cowardly sleight of hand employed by the people who control the public debate right now. You know exactly what I was banned for. It says so right there in the message. Is this some admission that this was one of those pretenses people use to shut down freedom of speech?

I think the mask is already slipping. Under the pretense of some noble ideals, other people are censored, but it's actually just the same bullshit in another package. Allegations of hatefulness, hate speech regulation, porn prohibitions, identity politics, censorship -- I knew right away why this place creeped me out and it looks like my intuition was right. This is not a place for freedom of speech, this is just a place to put censorship back into the hands who lost the upper hand.

I came in with the intention to give people the benefit of the doubt, I debated honestly, as you can see from my post history, but now I seriously feel some honest contempt. You are unbelievable hypocrites. If you wanted to debate this topic with me, we could have done so in the appropriate sub, from which I am banned now. So far, that is a mere inconvenience, but I am baffled how people are surprised when the same censorship keeps creeping in from the backdoor whenever they start a new community. You people must either be stupid or malicious.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

SaidIt isn't a free speech platform because of the pyramid of debate rule (lots of influential discourse irl takes places at low-pyramid levels), and because of trying to not be like voat (see admin magnora7's comments in /s/holocaustskepticism). Arguably I shouldn't be here because I'm wary of stuff being censored at all and annoyed that people continue to use sites that are censored... but I don't want to read the pornography and the hostility and the grossness and I haven't gotten around to setting up filters and I ended up back here for the time being. (which I think has a pretty neat concept) and (fediverse) are pretty much as-free-as-the-law-allows speech (though of course that still excludes some things). /s/DecentralizeAllThings and /s/SaidItAlternatives list some other platforms that may be of interest.

[–]theoracle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and because of trying to not be like voat

There is a number of factors to voat, and freespeech is only one. Others are down votes, dominating personalities ,lack of any opposition combined to suppress any opposition. I think there is multiple ways you can avoid voat while still having absolute free speech, and optional moderation is one good way. Look how well post collapsing works on Notabug. (which I think has a pretty neat concept) and free

Notabug is alpha, a lot of the features are incomplete. Developer is gone too.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Porn reliably gets NSFW tags. That works well, even on Reddit or Twitter, which, ironically, are full with porn. You are more likely to catch a glimpse of a body part you don't like to see at a beach or a pool.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I will not replace one kind of identitarianism with another

What do you mean by "identitarianism" and what do you see as wrong with it?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

People's opinions being judged on the basis of their identity or person, for example, the idea that women would need a space online, absent of their physical presence on a site, where they cannot face danger by being confronted on their opinion. It is what the left is doing with minorities, black people, for example. You can have an opinion or input on something because of your "lived experience". That is akin to saying that a cancer patient is an oncologist.

If you are a male gynecologist, you can still know more about the female body than the average woman. I am a human male, yet, a woman who would have studied (male) anatomy would probably know more about my body than I do.

I believe identitarian positions to be inherently nonsensical. I also despise the idea that men are so detrimental to women that just sharing a discussion board online is harmful to them. An online space already puts you so far apart that this is completely irrelevant. There will also always, always, always be men in any women's space online. It is unavoidable. You can set up sites like Spinsters and you would still have men in the mix. The only difference is between them being honest or not, and I much prefer honesty, as far as it does not compromise the desired level of anonymity, than pretending.

These positions are so untenable in so many ways. Everything about this ideology is contradictory and nonsensical. As a consequence, these online communities inherit the contradictions. That is why they always have to defend their existence with exclusionary rules, banning, silence, authoritarianism. They can never survive on sound logic or truth alone. They always need to shut out a portion of arguments that threaten their premises.

It is not only that they always contort themselves into mental pretzels when structuring their community rules, they also always need to shun honest examination of the basis of their ideology, such as history, biology, evolutionary psychology, or simple statistics. How do people live like this for so long? I used to be a far leftist and I ran into these contradictions, after which I kicked it to the curb.

Let's cut the bullshit and state it plainly: there is no "community of women". What there actually is is a web page displaying text. You are not in danger, you are not in community with anyone. It's some text in English on a screen and either the content is useful or it is not, it is true, false or undecidable. You do not know how it was input, by whom, in what mental state, of what gender, if they were sincere, trolling, or parroting back the party line for approval.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Thanks for explaining.

I guess for me, personally I have been very, idk, into identity stuff lately. I've been following radical feminism and white identity stuff.

I do see some problems with it, and I can see how I'm kindof being used... idk that radical feminism or the alt-right are really acting effectively in the best interests of women or whites all the time. Like, sometimes it seems to help. And I appreciate having a refuge of sorts when I'm tired of hearing how dumb women are, or how bad whites are. And sometimes I just want to be around people who are more "like me," although there are ways I don't feel like I fit in with either of those groups too.

I like them though. I feel like it's different with the spaces are just for people of those groups. Like I tend to have different conversations offline with people in my life if I'm alone with one person, or in a group, or whatever. It's just different. And I don't think there's anything wrong or censorious about having spaces like that, that are clearly defined and explained, and aren't using a space that's meant for everyone (like e.g. /r/news).

It feels like there is value in it too. People are different, sometimes, ethnicity to ethnicity, gender to gender. I usually find it easier to talk with female people, idk why but it's just something I've observed. I usually feel more comfortable with other white people, not always, and sometimes that's just due to political stuff, and sometimes I feel more at ease with people who are from my same locale regardless of race. But it's there. I think there is a value in having spaces like this too.

I don't think having spaces like this necessarily requires people to have the full identitarian politics thing you're talking about though.

Do you feel a similar frustration with things that are meant for groups that you're personally part of, demographically?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know anything about the rest. Whatever is personal preference is up to you. If you're on a dating site, you want to be able to specify male or female, of course. If you are looking for a book on chemistry, it might be silly to prefer reading from a male or female author, and I will call you silly for it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Do you feel a similar frustration with things that are meant for groups that you're personally part of, demographically?

Oh, yes, I absolutely do. But that is out of identitarianism, which is why I hate it. I am increasingly forced into thinking in terms of my group membership and my ethnicity, because it can make the difference between me being murdered or not. I am not that naive.

Again, I am not making any statements about my person, just as I believe I have not disclosed my gender or ethnicity, but the more other people validate identity, the less choice I have to remain oblivious to it. I used to have far more connection with people based on interest. I could connect with someone from the other side of the planet based on the same interests.

The gaming community, for example, was destroyed in large part that way, I believe. It used to actually be one of the most inclusive communities imaginable. It did not matter what your gender or ethnicity was. If you liked some of the same games, you were instantly part of the group. It had the ability to bridge divides like few other things. Identitarians destroyed that. On this point, for example, feminists often allege that they were excluded from gaming communities. That could not be further from the truth. Men would have loved women to have shown interests in some of the same hobbies. Instead, it was derided, displayed as "uncool", you were bullied for it, by other men, and women would not have anything to do with you. We all saw that growing up, but now it seems we deny the most transparent parts about our culture.

The smears, lies, and the constant victimhood ideologies were what destroyed it. Suddenly, mere disagreement was violence. Everybody was being equally targeted with abuse for playing badly. People didn't usually know your gender or ethnicity anyway. That is some of the hypocrisy I see in radfems circles and from feminists who say they are being harassed online, on platforms where they have the choice to be completely anonymous. It's transparent what these people are doing. They disclose their identity on purpose so they can claim that they were attacked for it. Had they remained anonymous, such allegations would be obviously without basis. It's like Brianna Wu posting abuse to herself on her own dev account.

Keeping people safe from disagreement keeps them stunted in development. It is the same with the black community as it is with women. Men supposedly have an advantage in their upbringing and maybe that is true in so far that they are not as coddled, that they are told not to cry, that they are told to "man up". Such a community always remains infantile and dependent. People of a more self-reliant generation point this out about their own communities, such as Thomas Sowell. Black people are similarly hypocritical, at least black identitarians, in many of the same ways. They grow up sneering at education, looking down on other blacks who sit down and do their homework, but then they grow up to be useless and complain they were not given the same opportunities. They spat at the opportunities they did have.

But, the more important these aspects become, the more I shift whatever is relevant to identity offline. I do not know whom I speak to online. It could be anyone on the other side of the keyboard. People I need to trust I need to have met offline. I am building such a community, because I do not know how much worse the culture is getting. Then, I might need someone I can rely on.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I am increasingly forced into thinking in terms of my group membership and my ethnicity, because it can make the difference between me being murdered or not. I am not that naive.

It can? You think people from other groups want to murder you?

I used to have far more connection with people based on interest. I could connect with someone from the other side of the planet based on the same interests.

Yeah tbh I've had this experience too. :(

I've missed out on friendships because of this stuff, because it's inside me now, this group-identity stuff, and because it's inside the other people I'm supposed to be connecting with. Who it should be easy for me to connect with.

The smears, lies, and the constant victimhood ideologies were what destroyed it.

Yeah I think this is how the political groups recruit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wait, just saw this pearl of wisdom here:

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

Sorry, what? Are you off your meds?

But, either way, let's make an example of free speech out of this. If there is only garbage coming out of your mouth, I am free to ignore it. I do not need to censor you to illustrate your mental illness or whatever you are struggling with to the world. I can reply to whatever valid points you are making.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

Alright. Are you trying to make a point about censorship? I can ignore you without banning you categorically. You are trying to push me into blocking you to make a point? That won't work.

Also, I can be hypocritical, I won't deny that. But people will call me out on it, just like I am calling out Reddit refugees who set up new hug boxes.

[–]joeytundra 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This was not written by me. This was an essay published in Gay Magazine in the early 80's.

[–]joeytundra 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Gay men do in fact have tons of influence. These orgs have billionaire backers which gay men have been the main beneficiaries. If gay men don't like a comedian like Kevin Hart telling a joke 10 years ago...they have the power to cancel him. Then claim they will do the same to Ellen the lesbian for forgiving him. Gay men get their power by pretending they don't have power...then feigning oppression when they are openly celebrated. You should look at what gay men have written about in the past. Explain why most of it has come to pass? You will also see NAMBLA still mentioned in 1987 when this was written. Still using the same techniques.

A little from the link


In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, gay men might have an amount of influence that is not in proportion to their numbers. Like women. Or maybe certain people in the media. But gay men are also a tiny minority of men.

Do you think these things through before you type them?

[–]joeytundra 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Numbers don't matter when you have power. Also numbers are inflated with the organizations because it's not just gay men in those organizations so politicians take notice of the numbers.

[–]Overdrive 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You have some interesting takes however the overall feel coming from your writing is that of someone who has become frightened of any sort of power women and women's groups may come to hold and I'd go so far as to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with women holding power or having a say in a program. I do not believe that women will ever come to completely control any "program" although I do not doubt that there is a "sisterhood" and that women can dictate things in a way that not only hurts men, but also other women!

Anyway, on the contrary power is exactly what has elluded women for a very, very long time. Thousands of years. So if you claim that women are the most coddled I would hope that by that you mean subdued and controlled. You cannot deny that women have been historically persecuted against by no other reason than for being female.

I do have concerns about men's rights in all of this because I have firsthand seen advantages given to women with almost no questions asked. Things like child custody battles, alimony, rape accusations. These powers take place in legal court and benefit women more so than men and in some cases the women involved are truly vile people. Poor mothers, refusal to work, cheaters and liars. Although those can also apply to men. And there are reasons such safety nets were put in place to begin with, I do realize that. It is still frightening to see when men are used and abused in this way and I do not think it is right. If you have any literature on that particular imbalance I'd appreciate it. Something that preferably has a solution that you strongly identify with. Thanks.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you for your armchair analysis. If you could invest all that time you supposedly spent in already refuting these arguments, it would be nice to just present the facts, which I never end up hearing.

[–]Overdrive 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're welcome. I just knew it'd be welcomed by you, considering the piles of individual analysis that you have already provided.

Women and Power

You should probably read it to comprehend better.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hey, a small request: the sub I banned you from is NOT /s/GenderCritical, but /s/Gender_Critical (with an underscore)

Yes, I know the names are similar, /s/Gender_Critical (with the underscore) was created as an alternative to /s/GenderCritical because I was not happy with /r/GenderCritical's policies.

I am not affiliated with /s/GenderCritical (no underscore) nor is this controversy.

If you update your post with the correct sub name, it would help the discussion take place properly and provide feedback to the appropriate channels (presumably me, the mod of s/G_C, not the mods of s/GC).

[–]theoracle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Alt subs are just so messy, let everyone post under the same subject but choose how they are moderated.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Banned for being Male?

they have to go

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Actually, I changed my mind. They should be allowed to enforce whatever rules they like. The important thing is that everyone can set up their own community. We should counter ideas with ideas.

If we force them to change their rules, then site admins would need to step in and site admins controlling permissible rules is worse than people implementing bad rules on their own subs.

I think we should do the Mushroom Picker Dance.

Actually, everything is okay.

But, still, those people are dumb. Example:

They are bringing over their Reddit nonsense. It's feminist victimology.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

they are off /all now so i'm content. Good debate you had there with cccccc

[–]sheabutterbby 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

GC needs to realize that the same exact reason they attack TRAs and Trans people for, is the same exact shit that they do. There's literally no fucking diference.

[–]muyuu 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

There's a strong difference, but yes they are both two different strands of leftism sharing a large body of ideology. They are both also completely intolerant of discussing their basic tenets and quite illiberal in the classical sense. However I agree with them in something very important, and that is sex being a biological reality with major implications in society. That is the point of contention between GC and TRA.

[–]sheabutterbby 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You're both two sides of the same coin.

One of you are leftist on the spectrum as TRAs, the other is on the spectrum for GC. There's no "contention"; its absolute hypocrisy and feigned ignorance that you are exhibiting the same erratic behavior you've gone in on TRAs for.

[–]muyuu 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who is "you"?

Yep, two sides of the same coin are not the same, but exact opposites with regards of which side of the coin it is.

[–]sheabutterbby 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you want to word it that way, sure

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)


I used to agree with GC ideas, until I read their reddit sub. Fuck that place is vile.

[–]sheabutterbby 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I used to agree as well, and there's still some stuff that I agree with, but they're really extreme with and it's a no from me.

[–]TheNecrons 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

This seems to be perfectly fine to me. No ToS have been broken.

If you want all subs to allow debate and opposing opinions, that's fascist. Some subs are simply not into debate (and thank God, imagine if every place was a debate here), but they are only about cherishing and circle-jerking only view.

Saidit allows removing OT content. If a subreddit sets its topic to a particular view, posting opposing content would be OT, and mods are totally fine to remove.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

saiditor 20 days, godwin effect in 10s

OT means 'off topic'. Debating GC theory is ON topic.

Their mod prevent debate, against rules. If you don't like the rules, find somewhere else

[–]Nelumbo 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Saidit's owner says they are following the rules, how embarassing that a 1 year old user doesn't understand this.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

if they left /all, then sure. Now they have.

[–]Nelumbo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

"now"? they did it a week before you posted this thread whining about them, as you already know going by your reply to the admin

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I had no idea that that post had been removed until i read your comment.

Believe it or not, don't care.

EDIT. my post was hardly high on the debate pyramid, and hardly high quality.

[–]TheNecrons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Topic can be set to one view easily. For example: "s/progun".

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a subreddit sets its topic to a particular view, posting opposing content would be OT, and mods are totally fine to remove.

they have to follow mod rule 4b if they want to do this

[–]fartwaffen 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Let them suffocate one another in their stale vacuum. But be watchful. They will most assuredly try to infiltrate other groups.

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I can vouch for what the OP is saying ....I was banned from it for "a sin" of crime thought I supposedly have done somewhere else on Saidit. What an incredibly red Reddit thing to do.

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

did you report it to /u/magnora7 ?

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

they're off /all so they're allowed to do that

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

can we get them off all/new please?

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

[–]bobbobbybob[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There's a reason why we all love you

[–]muyuu 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OP, have you read magnora7's post? ACK if you have understood these points.